Alan Greenspan is president of Townsend-Greenspan & Co., economic consultants to many of the nation's largest corporations. A subsidiary, Townsend-Skinner & Co., acts as a consultant and advisor to many large financial institutions.

Mr. Greenspan is also president of Quantitative Economic Data Corporation, a company organized in association with Standard and Poor's Corporation to develop and market computerized industry models.

In 1968, Mr. Greenspan served as Director of Domestic Policy Research of the Nixon for President Committee. He was appointed by the President-elect as his personal representative to the Bureau of the Budget for the period of transition. Mr. Greenspan also served as chairman of his transitional Task Force on Foreign Trade

Policy. In March, 1969, he was appointed by President Nixon to serve on his Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force and in October, 1969, to serve on his Task Force on Economic Growth. In June 1970, Mr. Greenspan was appointed to the Commission for Financial Structure and Regulation by President Nixon.

Mr. Greenspan has been a member of the New York Commodity Exchange since 1959. He is a director of a number of corporations.

He is also President, a Fellow and a member of the executive committee of the National Association of Business Economists and a member of the Conference of Business Economists.

Mr. Greenspan has lectured extensively over the years on various business and economic subjects and contributed numerous articles to professional and business journals.

47-076 O 70-29

Mr. MIZE. I presume that the situation as to Kansas City is going to be in these figures you submit?

Mr. NAUMANN. Yes, sir.

Our association has asked for remedical legislation which will restore the balance of power between labor and management at the bargaining table and which will assist employers in resisting these unconscionable demands of the unions who, due to the manpower shortage, virtually enjoy a monopoly over the skilled manpower supply in our industry. We have said that if legislative relief is not forthcoming, and if the unions do not exercise restraint and responsibility, then we must face wage and price controls as a last resort.

The situation in our industry is so bad at this time that we believe positive ad mandatory steps must be taken to control wages-at least in construction. Such controls should be for a limited time only, as determined by Congress.

During this time wage and fringe benefit increases would not be permitted to exceed the increase in the consumer price index and increase in productivity. In specific cases where unions or employers maintain that such control over wages would result in inequitable treatment to employees and administrative body would be empowered to investigate and make adjustments in the wage and fringe formula that may be indicated by the facts involved.

During the period of these controls management and labor, along with Government should cooperate to initiate constructive action in the following areas:

A national stabilization agreement containing a no-strike, nolockout pledge with provisions that the arbitration of wage disputes would be developed and implemented;

Improve efficiency in the use of construction manpower by using skilled workmen to perfrom only skilled work. This move could immediately increase the supply of manpower by more than 20 percent;

Reevaluate government policies and laws which are geared to unemployment and underemployment of manpower; and

Relax present Labor Department restrictions on apprenticeship and training, thereby increasing and putting greater emphasis on the recruiting and training of minority workers.

In my opinion, the time has come for Congress to exercise its responsibility to stop this increase in labor costs in our industry which rose at the rate of 8-percent in 1968 and jumped to 15 percent in 1969, with a current rate of 20-percent a year increase in wage rates alone in the construction industry. We point out that these increases do not include working rules and working conditions set forth in the contract which must be considered as part of the increased cost of doing business. I have reference to the size of the crew, restrictions on the use of products, the number of foremen involved, and similar inhibiting factors on productivity.

Given this set of circumstances and the history of the total failure of voluntary restraint, there is no alternative, in my opinion, than the enactment of legislation by the Congress granting the President of the United States standby control powers with authority to impose a freeze on wages, with additional powers to roll back excessive wage increases granted since May 25, 1970.

By simple arithmetic, anything that exceeds the increase in productivity is inflationary. Further, anything that is over and above the increase in the cost of living and the increase in productivity is unjustified.

We look to Congress for the answer. Jawboning of the establishment of more commissions is not the answer. We are in a crisis and Congress must react to that crisis by appropriate action.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir. You have made a very interesting statement.

Mr. NAUMANN. If I might, Mr. Chairman, I have just a very, very short statement on the matter of uniform cost accounting, and I believe it can be explained by a resolution that was passed at the last convention in March of 1970 of the Associated General Contractors. The statement starts:

That the construction industry believes that the application of uniform cost accounting standards as contained in House Resolution 17880 should not apply to the construction industry, since our industry cannot lend itself to uniform cost accounting criteria.

The substance of the resolution is:

Whereas, the General Accounting Office has recommended to the Congress that uniform standards be developed for cost accounting in preparing and administering negotiated contracts,

Whereas, change orders in construction are considered to be negotiated procurements,

Whereas, construction procurement is based primarily on award through open competitive bidding,

Whereas, the General Accounting Office study reaffirms the long-standing industry view that the Armed Services Procurement Regulation should direct specific attention to construction contracting: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved. That the Associated General Contractors of America assembled in its 91st Annual Convention March 6th to the 12th, 1970 urges individual industry consideration where standards tailored to the construction industry since the application of the proposed uniform cost accounting standard are not the practice for this industry.

Attached to this very short resolution is a discussion of the Armed Services Procurement Regulations as they apply to our industry, which I would like to submit as a part of the statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate it very much. It will be considered, and it will be helpful. Mr. NAUMANN. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Harold O. Smith, Jr., chairman of the Wholesale Grocers' National Affairs Committee of America, Inc.

Mr. Smith, we are glad to have you, sir. And you may proceed in your own way to give us your statement.

You may proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD O. SMITH, JR., CHAIRMAN, WHOLESALE GROCERS' NATIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FOOD MERCHANDISERS OF AMERICA, INC.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name. is Harold O. Smith, Jr. I am executive director of Food Merchandisers of America, Inc. I am also chairman of the National Affairs Committee of National Federation of Food Distributors. Both of these